Utah Criminal Defense
Attorney Salt Lake City
On
October 28, 2015, the Utah Supreme Court announced the promulgation of
a new evidentiary rule, governing the admissibility of statements made
during custodial interrogations in Utah
felony
cases. The rule places
significant restrictions on the use of such statements, unless police
make a recording of the statement available to defense counsel and at
trial. The rule takes effect January 1, 2016.
If you are
facing criminal prosecution in Utah, the assistance of an
experienced
criminal defense attorney is critical.
Contact
us today to arrange for
an initial confidential consultation with Utah
criminal lawyer Stephen
Howard.
Utah Rules of Evidence - Rule 616 - Admissibility of
Statements Made in Custodial Interrogations
The
new Rule 616 of the Utah Rules of Evidence provides generally that in
felony prosecutions, a
statement made by a criminal defendant during a custodial interrogation
that occurs in a "place of detention" is not admissible against the
defendant unless an electronic recording of the statement was created
and is made available at trial. Subsection (b) of the rule makes it
clear that this rule "is in addition to" and is not intended to
diminish any other requirements of a defendant's admissions or
statements. The "other requirements" referred to should be interpreted
as including other rules of evidence as well as
Fifth
Amendment
constitutional protections as interpreted by case law, including the
United States Supreme Court decision in
Miranda
and its progeny.
The
rule states, "Except as otherwise provided in Subsection (c) of this
rule, evidence of a statement made by the defendant during a custodial
interrogation in a place of detention shall not be admitted against the
defendant in a felony criminal prosecution unless an electronic
recording of the statement was made and is available at trial. This
requirement is in addition to, and does not diminish, any other
requirement regarding the admissibility of a person’s statements."
While
Rule 616 appears to create a broad prohibition on the use of unrecorded
statements made during custodial interrogations, the rule also provides
a number of exceptions that severely limit the effect of the rule.
These exceptions include:
- Statements that were made prior to January 1, 2016;
- Statements
that were made during a custodial interrogation that occurred outside
Utah and was conducted by officers of a jurisdiction outside Utah;
- Statements that are is offered for impeachment purposes
only;
- Statements
that were spontaneously made outside the course of a custodial
interrogation or made during routine processing or booking of the
person;
- Statements made when, before or during a custodial
interrogation, the person agreed to respond to questions only if his or
her statements were not electronically recorded, provided that such
agreement is electronically recorded or documented in writing;
- Statements
made when the law enforcement officers conducting the custodial
interrogation in good faith failed to make an electronic recording
because the officers inadvertently failed to operate the recording
equipment properly, or without the knowledge of any of the officers the
recording equipment malfunctioned or stopped operating;
- Statements
made when the law enforcement officers conducting or observing the
custodial interrogation reasonably believed that the crime for which
the person was being investigated was not a felony under Utah law;
- Statements
made when substantial exigent circumstances existed that prevented or
rendered unfeasible the making of an electronic recording of the
custodial interrogation, or prevented its preservation and availability
at trial;
Rule 616 further provides that the court may allow
unrecorded statements to be used at trial if the court finds: first,
that the statement has "substantial guarantees of trustworthiness and
reliability equivalent to those of an electronic recording;" and,
second, that "admitting the statement best serves the purposes of [the
rules of evidence] and the interests of justice."
This final
exception is potentially broad enough to eclipse the general rule that
unrecorded statements should be excluded. The rule does not define or
otherwise explain what kinds of guarantees of trustworthiness and
reliability are "equivalent to those of an electronic recording." The
rule also gives no guidance as to how to determine when the admission
of an unrecorded statement "best serves . . . the interests of justice."
The
apparent purpose of this rule appears to be to reduce uncertainty
relating to the reliability of alleged confessions in criminal cases.
But the way that courts decide to interpret this rule could greatly
limit its ultimate effect in the criminal justice system.
Finding a Utah Criminal Defense Lawyer

Whether
you are facing felony charges or
misdemeanor
prosecution, the
consequences
of conviction can be serious. Having the assistance of an experienced
criminal defense attorney can
make all the difference.
Contact
us today to arrange for an initial confidential consultation with Utah
criminal lawyer Stephen Howard.
Contact us today to
arrange for an initial confidential consultation.
OTHER CRIMINAL DEFENSE TOPICS